R v Cranston (No 15) - [2022] NSWSC 977

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cranston (No 15) [2022] NSWSC 977
Hearing dates: 20 July 2022
Date of orders: 20 July 2022
Decision date: 21 July 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
(1) The individual Juror 02960699 is discharged pursuant to s 53B(d) of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW);
(2) Pursuant to s 53C(1)(b) of the Jury Act, the trial is to continue with the remaining thirteen jurors.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Jury — Discharge of individual juror — where juror falling asleep during evidence — juror discharged
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Jury — order that the trial continue with remaining jurors

Legislation Cited:
Jury Act 1977 (NSW), ss 53A, 53B, 53C

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Adam Michael Cranston (Accused)
Lauren Anne Cranston (Accused)
Jason Cornell Onley (Accused)
Dev Menon (Accused)
Patrick Willmott (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
P McGuire SC with J Paingakulam and C Tran (Crown)
J Stratton SC with H Blake (Adam Cranston)
TD Anderson SC (Lauren Cranston)
P Bruckner (Dev Menon)
WR Johnson (Jason Onley)
L Brasch (Patrick Willmott)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
One Group Legal (Adam Cranston)
Greg Willis Criminal Defence Lawyer (Lauren Cranston)
Hardinlaw (Dev Menon)
Pure Legal (Jason Onley)
The Defenders (Patrick Willmott)

File Number(s): 2017/148697; 2017/148185; 2017/148776; 2017/149208; 2020/115291
Publication restriction: Not to be published other than to the parties until after the trials of each of the accused are completed.

Judgment

This trial commenced on 26 April 2022 and fifteen jurors were empanelled. On 28 June 2022, I made orders discharging an individual member of the jury and determined that the trial should continue with the remaining fourteen jurors: R v Cranston (No 14) [2022] NSWSC 860.
The trial subsequently proceeded until yesterday, 20 July 2022, the 48^th day of the trial. On the morning of 20 July 2022, I received a note from Juror 02960699 in the following terms:

“To His Honour
I, [Juror 02960699], have decided to withdrawn (sic) from this jury and from the case. My insomnia has been taking a big toll on my physical and mental health, as I'm sure you and everyone else has noticed. My lack of attention when the trial is in session has, in my opinion, impaired my judgment as a juror as I keep missing details as they are presented. My presence has always been a distraction for the other jurors as they have to try to keep me awake. I have decided to seek the medical help I need, and it is for that reason that, with heavy heart, I would like to withdraw from this jury. I wish you and everyone else in this court the best. Best of luck with the trial.”

In addition to my opening remarks, I had previously addressed the jury about the importance of informing me if they were having difficulty concentrating or staying awake during the evidence: T555.25-32. This was because of my observations of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Cranston (No 15)

Details

AGLC: R v Cranston (No 15) [2022] NSWSC 977
Case: [2022] NSWSC 977
Decision Date: 21 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Court of Appeal was an appeal from a decision of the trial judge to discharge a juror and continue with the trial using eleven jurors. The appellant, Mr Cranston, was on trial for serious criminal charges, and the trial was being conducted with a jury. During the trial, a juror fell asleep while evidence was being presented. The trial judge discharged the juror, and the trial continued with eleven jurors. Mr Cranston appealed the trial judge's decision to discharge the juror and to continue with the trial using an eleven-person jury.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge was correct in discharging the juror and whether it was appropriate to continue the trial with eleven jurors. The court was required to consider the legal principles governing the discharge of jurors and the continuation of trials with a reduced number of jurors. The court also had to consider whether the discharge of the juror and the continuation of the trial with eleven jurors affected the fairness of the trial or the appellant's right to a fair trial.

The court found that the trial judge's decision to discharge the juror was within their discretion, and the court found no error in that decision. The court also found that continuing the trial with eleven jurors was not a departure from the fundamental principles of justice. The court held that the trial judge was not required to discharge the juror or stop the trial and start again with a new jury. The court found that the appellant's right to a fair trial was not compromised by the discharge of the juror or the continuation of the trial with eleven jurors. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from the discharge of the juror or the continuation of the trial with eleven jurors.

The appeal was dismissed. The orders of the trial judge were affirmed.

Orders